**Whistleblowers expose important information about potential corruption and illegal, immoral, and unsafe practices within organizations.** - [Whistleblowing](https://www.iaca.int/media/attachments/2018/06/18/research_paper_05_ruggero_scaturro_final.pdf) has historically brought important changes to the world by calling out corruption and failures of accountability. [Whistleblowers can become well known](https://www.politico.com/gallery/2013/08/10-famous-infamous-whistleblowers-001083?slide=0) for their moral actions against corruption. - There is a strong case for protecting whistleblowers. They can be [retaliated against](https://www.axios.com/whistleblowers-personal-price-ukraine-ellsberg-snowden-45069990-0489-4b10-8e95-53bcd3786723.html)---fired from the organization they expose, jailed, sent death threats. The extent of protection whistleblowers have varies country to country, and is also dependent on the political and cultural environments and how much they value the information (and the way it was) exposed. In the U.S., whistleblower protection laws have been in place since 1978. In the U.K., whistleblowers have been protected since 1999; Australia, since 1993, and South Africa since 2000. [EU member states will have to implement whistleblower protection laws](https://www.natlawreview.com/article/dancing-to-eu-s-tune-why-its-whistleblowing-directive-may-still-affect-you-uk) by the end of 2021. - According to [this research](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4770925/), restricting the term "whistleblower" to internal reports within organizations instead of reporting that happens outside the organization has different implications. It may be not as feasible to provide protections for whistleblowers who report within the organization rather than going outside of it. Organizations can make the employee's life difficult without actually firing them, and so the thought is to prevent whistleblowing of this sort rather than incentivize it. - Recent news- Frances Haugen's written testimony to Congress as a whistleblower on Facebook: https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/FC8A558E-824E-4914-BEDB-3A7B1190BD49

Depends on what is being blown and if you the individual are in real danger. Like the recent Facebook "whistle-blower" didn't actually release anything that gives any good information, the studies people are referring to at most Have 1,000 respondents and some had few as 10. Thus this whistle-blower isn't blowing the whistle on anything that means anything and realistically it was political against Facebook. Don't get me wrong, I am leery of Facebook but this whistle-blower isn't a real whistle-blower imo Also you aren't a whistle-blower if you release a list of people who are a countries intelligence officer, you are just a spy then.

**It is in everyone's best interest to protect whistleblowers** - Whistleblowing is a form of [checks and balances](https://www.icaew.com/-/media/corporate/files/technical/corporate-governance/connect-and-reflect/how-whistleblowing-helps-companies.ashx) within an organisation. - Without checks and balances, safety breaches can occur unchallenged. - Most large businesses have whistleblowing policies that protect whistleblowers from retribution. - Companies sign up to the idea that nothing can be completely controlled, so acknowledge that things within a business can go wrong (rogue employees, safety issues etc) - Thus they somewhat rely on whistleblowing as a form of checks and balances. - Without protection individuals can be prevented from taking the ethical, moral high ground and standing up for what is right. - Without protection people will not blow the whistle because they will fear for their job security and personal safety, of not only themselves but their colleagues, family, and the general public. - Whistleblowing exposes issues that can be of concern or even illegal and dangerous to the public. - So it is in everyone's best interest to protect those who blow the whistle.